I Think I’m A Pharisee (but that’s OK, Jesus was too)
I suspect Jesus was a Pharisee. Not in the figurative way we use the word, as in telling someone who says one thing and does the opposite “you’re such a Pharisee.” But I think Jesus literally belonged to the first century Jewish sect of the Pharisees.
Think about it. The synagogue was a structure that grew out of that particular Jewish sect. The synagogue served as a major hub for Jesus and his disciples. And the term Rabbi was birthed out of that tradition as well, a title Jesus was comfortable being addressed as.
Besides that, Jesus had lots of Pharisee friends. He spent time with them, ate in their homes, and debated them in the marketplace. We don’t see Jesus hanging out the homes of Sadducees, or spending time in the homes of the High Priests. Wherever you find Jesus you find a gaggle of Pharisees gathered around him.
Finally, significant numbers of Pharisee’s belonged to the early Church. In Acts 15, key Church leaders were debating what to do with all the Gentiles coming into the faith. “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said…” These were believers who claimed to “belong to the party of the Pharisees.” Of course, one of the most famous Apostles, Paul, was a Pharisee and probably held that designation to teach in synagogues throughout the Near East and Europe.
Apparently, I’m not alone in this opinion. A quick Google search reveals a handful of Jewish and Christian scholars who share this opinion and have written volumes on it. Jesus may very well have been a Pharisee.
So, what’s significant about Jesus being schooled by, and belonging to the religious community known as Pharisees?
First, Christians need to lighten up on all the Pharisee hating that populates our attitudes. The Pharisees were reformers and zealous for God. They sought God’s good rule in society and in their personal lives (albeit imperfectly). I’d guess that many Pharisee-snubbing Christians have more in common with Pharisees than they think. Not because they’re hypocrites – though some are – but because we’re very devout, love God, and are serious about our faith.
Second, this possibility puts Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees in a different light. Jesus wasn’t calling “them” out, he was calling “us” out. That is, Jesus reserved his harshest rebuke for those with whom he felt the closest kinship.
On Being a Phari-gelical
It’s been hard to identify with Evangelicals lately. Not that there weren’t embarrassing public figures calling themselves Evangelicals back in the 80s when I converted. Or embarrassing Orthodox, Catholic or Mainline figures for that matter. It’s just that Evangelicals have either been acting up more, or that the magnifying glass of public scrutiny has been placed over the warts of American Evangelicalism.
But if Jesus was the most critical of the tradition he most identified with, it was out of a sense of love more so than an attempt to distance himself. Jesus reserved his greatest lament for those he held in greatest esteem, longing for them to become more than they had proved themselves to be.
It’s easy to switch parties when the ugly underbelly of your tradition gets exposed. And I’m not saying it’s always noble to remain in the faith tradition that you were born into, or that you joined in your idealistic youth. For some, leaving the Evangelical camp is like leaving an abusive spouse. You do it for the sake of your well-being.
I grew up in the Catholic tradition. But it was Evangelicals whose lives had been radicalized for the better that introduced me to a Jesus whom I knew about, but never truly knew. It was their piety – not false piety or piety for show, but honest-to-goodness kindness and integrity – that inspired me. Their devotion to God and their love of neighbor schooled me in the gracious way of Jesus.
So, while it would be convenient to quietly slip of this camp and into one of the other, less embarrassing, Christian traditions, I’ve decided to stick with the party of the Phari-gelicals. And, so it is with the affection of Christ that I will also call out, lament, and challenge this little slice of the larger Christian faith to become more than we have proved ourselves to be.
Jesus was known from the time he was very young to have instructed the local rabbi in matters of letters (the Hebrew alphabet). He’d also debated the temple priests, although we don’t have a narrative of what was said. He was a ‘Rabbi’ of a higher order, and all Pharisees and Saducees knew this, especially the High Priests. He was known among the common people as an extraordinary man, a healer, a teacher (who taught with authority and not as the ‘teachers of the law’). You must have an understanding of Jesus past what the Piso Flavian gospels relate, they do not give an accurate description of him. It is particularly ridiculous to not know this seeing we’ve had not only the Nag Hammadi texts, but several others for decades. “Beware the traditions of men” apparently holds no importance whatsoever, either that or (again) we’re going to the effort of misunderstanding what Jesus was relating in our religious ignorance. Jesus was not a religionist, he wasn’t a “fundamentalist christian”, nor did he found ‘Christianity”, that was Peter, the man who Jesus said “Get behind me Satan, thou savourest not the things of God, but the things of men”. Let’s not actually read our scriptures – we may have to make some changes.
Jesus was known from the time he was very young to have instructed the local rabbi in matters of letters (the Hebrew alphabet). He’d also debated the temple priests, although we don’t have a narrative of what was said. He was a ‘Rabbi’ of a higher order, and all Pharisees and Saducees knew this, especially the High Priests. He was known among the common people as an extraordinary man, a healer, a teacher (who taught with authority and not as the ‘teachers of the law’). You must have an understanding of Jesus past what the Piso Flavian gospels relate, they do not give an accurate description of him. It is particularly ridiculous to not know this seeing we’ve had not only the Nag Hammadi texts, but several others for decades. “Beware the traditions of men” apparently holds no importance whatsoever, either that or (again) we’re going to the effort of misunderstanding what Jesus was relating in our religious ignorance. Jesus was not a religionist, he wasn’t a “fundamentalist christian”, nor did he found ‘Christianity”, that was Peter, the man who Jesus told “Get behind me Satan, thou savourest not the things of God, but the things of men”. Let’s not actually read our scriptures – we may have to make some changes.